Pages

Tuesday, December 9, 2014

What's up with the pro-choice anger over abortion pill reversal?

I'd like to think that if I were pro-choice, I wouldn't be freaking out about abortion pill reversal. In a nutshell: a mother who takes the first pill (mifepristone) of the chemical abortion, then regrets it, is prescribed the pregnancy hormone progesterone to prevent the embryo's death. While nobody's suggesting it will work 100% of the time—obviously if the mifepristone has already killed the embryo, there's nothing you can do—early intervention could provide women with the ability to affect their choice for life. That's both pro-life and pro-choice, right?

First there's the issue of whether mifepristone is actually effective. She initially says that it's an important component of the two-pill procedure:

Misoprostol can work on its own—many black-market abortion pills are just misoprostol—but, according to the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, taking the mifepristone improves the likelihood of a safe, complete abortion.

Then Marcotte quotes Dr. Daniel Grossman from Ibis Reproductive Health (which supports abortion). In his account, the second pill (misoprostol) is the key and mifepristone alone does basically nothing,* to the point that an abortion pill reversal amounts to a placebo:

Mifepristone "by itself is not an effective abortion regimen," he said, and so many women who just take the first pill will not miscarry if they simply don't take the second. If he had a patient who changed her mind halfway through, he explained, he would recommend doing nothing and monitoring the pregnancy to make sure it's continuing normally.

Marcotte also can't decide where she stands on the safety of the progesterone injections. In one breath, she denounces it as a dangerous "experiment."** (Of course, when abortionists deviate from the FDA protocol for the abortion pills themselves, killing eight women in the process, the correct term is "making it easier on the patient.") In the next, she returns to Dr. Grossman, who "says that the progesterone probably won't hurt a woman if she’s under medical supervision." Which she would be, because shockingly, pro-life doctors are doctors too.

With all these contradictions it's hard to figure out what Marcotte's really getting at... until the piece's final quote. Dr. Grossman is

concerned that the advertising of this procedure could mislead the public about the prevalence of abortion regret. "In my experience caring for women seeking abortion, they don’t go into this lightly. They’re very clear about their decision..."

*EDIT, 9:20 AM EST: Dr. Grossman's characterization of mifepristone's role contradicts Planned Parenthood's educational materials, which state that mifepristone "works by blocking the hormone progesterone. Without progesterone, the lining of the uterus breaks down, and pregnancy cannot continue."

**The reversal protocol is only two years old, so published research is scant. I'd certainly like to see more. So far, though, there's nothing to suggest that progesterone is harmful to pregnant women who have taken mifepristone. That's unsurprising, since progesterone is naturally present in a pregnant woman's body.

Pro-choice angst over crisis pregnancy centers stems in no small partfrom the perception, real or otherwise, that pregnancy crisis centers use deception and sometimes outright lies to "trick" or "coerce" women to give birth when they don't want to. Which explains why Marcotte book-ended her piece in slate with the following sentences:

"In order to justify the crush of medically unnecessary regulations on abortion clinics in recent years, it's become common for anti-choicers to pose as the protectors of women's health."

"Even the Women's Choice Center director Vicki Tyler told Vocativ that, although they are offering the procedure, so far they have not performed any."

Perhaps pro-choicers are wrong to distrust pro-lifers (so much). But the gist of Macotte's article seems to me to be another example of pro-choice mistrust of the tactics, intentions, and values of pro-lifers generally, and not any specific concern over whether or not it is possible to reverse a chemical abortion. Which, even if it is, is a very uncommon practice.

I don't know any PCs who are particularly concerned about whether or not a chemical abortion could be reversed in the event that a women changed her mind (right after the first pill). I expect that most would actually think that is a good thing. Unless it was proposed by pro-lifers and/or marketed by pregnancy crisis centers, of course. In that event such a development would almost certainly fall under the heading of "beware Greeks bearing gifts."

Max, fair point. The fact that pro-lifers developed it (and who else would have?) is surely a reason Marcotte doesn't like it.But I also take Marcotte's word for it when she says that she's also motivated by the desire to avoid publicity for abortion regret.

Sure. Look, I'm quite certain that abortion regret is a real thing in some cases and I don't think there is any value in covering up that fact. Far from it, actually.However, like most PCers, I have a deep distrust of pro-lifers generally. Perhaps I am wrong, but I expect that some pro-lifers will tell women that ALL women have (deep) abortion regret and that some (perhaps all) will use the fact that some women have abortion regret to try to pass legislation that prohibits abortion "for their own good." Which is certainly true as well.Look, and I think we will agree on this point at least, we are talking about an issue where the legal rules have an existential significance on the lives that individuals live in our society. Because the stakes are so high, its probably not reasonable to expect either side to play "fair", whatever that means. But because of that, it is also unreasonable to take what either side says or does at face value.FWIW, however, I do think that acknowledging what the stakes are and what each of commitments are might make it easier to compromise where our only real disagreement is our distrust of each other.

Do I think all women experience abortion regret? No, and I'll push back against a fellow pro-lifer who says so. But I also think that pro-choice studies seriously underestimate the problem. "The most common reaction is relief," we hear, based on interviews with women the same day their abortions were completed. Well, no shit, Sherlock. Relief is a common reaction to ANY surgical procedure being over. You wouldn't assess, say, cosmetic surgery regret in the short term. You HAVE to look at the long term. As pro-life activists, we live in circles with women who didn't regret their abortions until they were hit with it YEARS later. Often, because they got pregnant again and saw a sonogram. And when we said hey, maybe women should see that BEFORE they make an irreversible decision, abortion clinics cried "war on women!"So yeah. We distrust each other. A lot.

Yup. IMO, its the reason why the US in many ways is the worst of all worlds when it comes to this issue (at least in the west). We have less financial support for women who choose to have children, significantly more expensive healthcare, an almost unfathomable reluctance to use birth control, less access to abortion providers but significantly later dates to have an abortion. I could go on forever....So we have more abortions, more later termed abortions. And the choices women make often just flow from the economic reality in which they are made. An economic reality that in many ways is just a function of the laws we've passed as a society.So we all lose. I guess that's "fair" is a really perverse sense.

The passage of time tends to blot out the memory of painful experiences and replace them with a rosy glow, and it's no surprise that women who later have a wanted pregnancy would look back on a past abortion with regret. She likely regretted and resented being in that position in the first place. If she is honest with herself, she will admit that given a second chance, she would probably do no different. She made that decision for a reason at the time, and circumstances have changed a great deal since then. We all do things we later regret. Regret by no means is an indication that the decision we made was the wrong one. It's an acknowledgment that life is complicated, and sometimes we're stuck with the best of a group of bad choices. It's certainly no reason to limit the choices of others. We're allowed to make decisions, for good or bad. It matters not if you make a mistake. We all do. What matters is where you go from there.

"You're pro choice? I thought that you wanted to kill all unborn babies everywhere...according to some of the PL posters here.."Surprise, surprise. Nobody ever went broke betting on the general stupidity of ideologues, did they? That's exactly what "pro-choice" means. And advocating for the patient is a huge part of being a nurse.

People should use birth control who have sex and don't want kids. Sure. But stating the obvious is just a cop out, isn't it? If we as a society don't want to pony up for a good deal more of the costs of raising kids born to other than affluent parents, we should probably stop with the faux-moralizing that we are doing on this issue. If your concern whithers and dies anytime it gets near your pocket book, I'd just as soon have you keep your crocodile tears to yourself.On both sides our actions fall so short of our rhetoric there is no real reason to take it seriously.

I agree. I would only add that PCers often fall just as short of their ideals when they prat on and on about women having free choices without acknowledging the real world constraints on those choices, constraints that are created by the legal rules we chose to live by.

My friends have had the most luck with PIO (progesterone-in-oil) injections as opposed to the vaginal suppositories. And it's also important to note that the progesterone should be bioidentical progesterone (as opposed to Prometrium, which is synthetic progesterone).

FWIW, Dr. Hilgers at the Pope Paul VI institute will work with any woman who feels she may need progesterone supplementation therapy. He will find a practitioner located near you who is willing, or he will order/analyze lab tests himself and call in a prescription if needed. More info here: http://www.popepaulvi.com/ncfwh-evaltreat.htm#prog

Hi, I'm sorry, but please be more careful about citing to documents that actually support your assertions, especially when they are potentially shocking or inflammatory.

I followed the link to "killing eight women," and the Americans United for Life made this assertion. "Eight. That’s the number of women who have died from a severe bacterial infection following use of RU-486 (also known as Mifeprex). In all eight cases, the women were instructed to use the abortion drugs in a way that has not been approved by the FDA.[1]"(http://www.aul.org/2013/01/planned-parenthood%E2%80%99s-latest-%E2%80%9Cstudy%E2%80%9D-proves-nothing-about-the-%E2%80%9Csafety%E2%80%9D-of-ru-486/).

HOWEVER, the FDA document cited in support of this serious allegation, does NOT support the assertion. It does state that 8/14 women who had fatal adverse effects after taking mifepristone died due to sepsis, and that those 8 women had taken misoprostol. The document states that these were post-marketing statistics, meaning, not as a result of a clinical trial. Nowhere (and I read it about 5 times to be sure) does it state that either drug was prescribed in an off-label manner. The document does not state where they took the misoprotol--whether it was at a medical facility or at home. It does not state who prescribed the medications to them. It does state that 7/8 took it vaginally, and 8/8 took it buccally, but it provides no other details about the 8 cases.

Further, the FDA document states that : "These events cannot with certainty be causally attributed to mifepristone because of information gaps about patient health status, clinical management of the patient, concurrent drug use and other possible medical or surgical treatments." (http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/DrugSafety/PostmarketDrugSafetyInformationforPatientsandProviders/UCM263353.pdf). The FDA explicitly states that there is not a definitive causal link between the the use of the two drugs in RU-486. One possible conflating factor (of many) is how the woman herself approached the infection and how it was treated if and when she did seek treatment.

It is truly sad that these women passed away, please do not misunderstand me on this point. But, the document simply does NOT provide sufficient information to actually support the assertion that off-label use of RU-486 killed those 8 women.

Please, please, please, check your citations to make sure they actually assert what they purport to assert. It is at best intellectually lazy not to do so, and can easily cross into the territory of being intentionally misleading, or worse.

Just at first description, I find the science of this both ethically and scientifically dubious.

How this "works" is simple: a woman takes mifepristone, which by itself is not likely to trigger an abortion, and then she's given progesterone shots, which tend to prevent a miscarriage and so "reverse" the effects of mifepristone.

But in order to "test" the effectives of this, Doctor George Delgado claims to have tried it out on at least 36 pregnant women. That's not a very big body of research, but don't get me wrong, I'm glad it's no bigger and I could wish it were much smaller, because:

To test it, he must have found three dozen women desperate enough to risk a wanted pregnancy at his say-so, to swallow mifepristone and hope his assertion was correct that the progesterone shots would reverse the effects of an abortion precursor.

I am unsurprised that an unscrupulous prolife doctor was willing to risk wanted pregnancies in order to produce "evidence" that there's a miracle reversal if women (silly creatures who can't really decide things, say prolifers) suddenly change their minds after they've taken the first abortion pill.

And I am also unsurprised that a prolife site sees nothing whatsoever wrong with Doctor Delgado performing these experiments on 36 women who didn't want to have an abortion. After all, what do women's rights matter to prolifers?

Why are you assuming the pro-life doctor is the one who gave these women the first medication? Isn't it more likely that these were women who had taken it already intending to abort, then changed their minds, and the pro-life doctor gave them progesterone as an experimental treatment to save their baby? And what is unethical about that?

Because the notion that there exist dozens of women who decided to have an abortion and then changed their minds after they took mifepriston is absurd.

(It might be true nonetheless: Cracked.com is full of 'six absurd things that turn out to be true" but it is so fundamentally absurd that it certainly requires proof each subject was ethically and by happenstance disccovered: she was not coerced for this prolife experiment.)

concerned that the advertising of this procedure could mislead the public about the prevalence of abortion regret. "In my experience caring for women seeking abortion, they don’t go into this lightly. They’re very clear about their decision..."

Well, in my five years of experience caring for women seeking abortion, there was at least one or two women each "procedure day" (3 days/week, 20-30 abortions/day) who left after a change of heart. We wrote "AMBIVALENT" on her chart and occasionally joked about taking bets on when she'd be back. "After all, she's already got 4 kids, what's she going to do? Go home and add more water to the soup?"

The worst part was when some *did* come back and there was zero discussion (to my knowledge) about what changed? Why is she back? Why did she leave before?

Of course, this was a surgical abortion facility I worked at (many years ago) so changing one's mind could not happen as it does with medical abortion--mid-procedure. But the assertion that "...women seeking abortion ..[are] very clear about their decision.." is just ridiculously glib and leaves no room for the messiness and unpredictability of real life.

I find myself extremely concerned that this was tested on human beings. Were there any animal tests, and if so, what are the effects on the embryo? Preventing an abortion is all well and good, but drugs have been known to cause severe birth defects. (thalidomide, cough)

There are no unborn children any more than there are unborn senior citizens. It is an embryo. If you keep insisting that it is a child, and should be treated like a child, then you should have no problem with it being removed, because children do not need to be attached to the bloodstream of other people.

Since all 'children' have been born, an 'unborn child' is simply a figment of your imagination. I don't have a problem with imaginary things being poisoned or dismembered. If I did, I'd have to protest most authors of horror fiction.

**"Too many women are forced to abort by poverty, by their menfolk, by their parents ... A choice is only possible if there are genuine alternatives.**

Sorry, epic fail here. There is ALWAYS a choice. As Morbius the Living Vampire pointed out. It's just that sometimes the available choices all badly suck, such as in Morbius's case, his set of choices were either 'drink blood' or 'commit suicide'.

'Poverty' does not point a gun at anyone's head and 'force' them to do anything. And choices ARE possible. That choice may be between getting an abortion, or starving a born child to death. The fact that a person may not like any of the choices available to them does not mean there are no choices, and it isn't anyone else's job to start pouring money at them until their set of choices is to their liking.

If the 'menfolk' are pointing a gun at the women, they should be arrested. If not, they are hardly 'forcing' them to do anything.

If somebody wants to pour money on these people, they will not be stopped.

Sorry. Simply because all available alternative suck, does not mean they are not 'genuine alternatives'. If EITHER getting an abortion OR letting the child starve to death after birth are both POSSIBLE for the mother to do, she does have 'genuine alternatives'. The fact that neither she nor you like any of the available alternatives does not mean that there are no 'genuine alternatives'.

I think what you mean is that a woman would be less likely to get an abortion if she had *preferable* alternatives. But it's not my job or anyone else's to make pastries or money fall from the sky so that she can have choices that she or you might prefer better.

Another thing... very often women get into situations where they have no *good* alternatives because they have made foolish decisions. So... lets say you throw money at such a woman, so she has a baby rather than getting an abortion. Or maybe she has 5 babies. It's very likely that the babies will grow up to make equally foolish decisions. Who throws five times the money at them in 20 more years? What happens when there are simply too many people making foolish decisions and not enough money?

I said 'I have never dismembered a child.'You said 'I said unborn child.'I ask you = What is the difference?I have asked you that before. I do not expect an answer this time either. Flying the cocktail flag early, Umbriaga?

I don't play those games. You don't get to sob about how it's 'really a child' but you want it kept in the uterus the way a fetus is. You have to choose one or the other.

YOU decide what it is. It is either a 'child' or a 'fetus'. If you continue to insist it is a 'child' then it will be treated AS a child. Since a 'child' does not exist inside other people, it will be removed, and you should have no problem with that.

Here's the thing - there are very, very few situations in which a person has 'no genuine choices'. I can imagine a FEW situations in which no choices exist. For instance, after I fall off a cliff, without a parachute, I have no choices after that. I will hit the ground and die. End of story.

There are many situations in which a person has a number of choices, but they all pretty much suck, and the person has to decide which one is the least bad. Sometimes this is due to bad luck, sometimes it is due to bad choices because the person is either stupid or foolish.

For instance, a woman may be in a situation in which she has to choose between getting an abortion, or having her baby die after birth due to starvation or a genetic defect. Or between abortion and having her husband either beat or leave her.

Abortion may be a sucky choice, but I want it to be legal, because it may at least be less sucky than whatever other sucky choices might exist. To use an analogy, a large number of people in the world trade center on 9/11 had 2 sucky choices. Die from fire, or die from falling by jumping out the window.

It would be nice if all women existed in a state such that they had at least one very nice choice, rather than all sucky choices, but realistically, I don't see that happening any time soon. Partly because there is no way to stop all women from making bad choices, partly because there is no way to turn all men into shining knights, partly because there is no way to eliminate starvation, genetic disorders, or medical complications of pregnancy. It may be in the far future most of these will be reduced, but we live in the now, not the future. We do not live in a fairy-tale world, and sometimes creating non-sucky choices for people is not possible. We cannot create a non-sucky option for all women, any more than we could create a non-sucky option for the people in the World Trade Center. Whining about how the least sucky option isn't a 'real choice' doesn't help. Dying from falling is probably less painful than burning to death, and eliminating the power of a woman to get an abortion or a person trapped in a burning skyscraper to jump out the window will not make the other options any less sucky or painful.

It is not my job to throw money at women, if I don't want to, so that they can have choices that they and you don't feel sad about. If you wish to give money to such women, so they have choices they or you feel better about, you will not be stopped.

Forcing people to throw money at such women in the form of government entitlement programs, simply moves the problem around and means that the women who the government extorted money from will be the ones left with the bad choices. I fail to see the advantage of having smarter and less foolish women being the ones forced to have all bad choices, rather than stupid and foolish ones, other than that stupidity and foolishness appeals to sad feelies.

Intelligence has at least a partly genetic component, and foolishness is often learned at home, so enabling the foolish and stupid to breed at the reproductive expense of the smarter and wiser is a very bad genetic policy regardless of whether you find it 'annoying' or have sad feelies about it.

Plum. I would like to point out that I do understand that you would like a world in which women only got abortions, because they personally really didn't want to be pregnant and have a baby, and not because all their other options sucked. But we don't live in a fairytale world, and I prefer to have abortion available partly BECAUSE all other options may suck worse. But that still doesn't mean the other options aren't real. It just means they suck.

**Progesterone injections absolutely are not harmful when medically managed**

So... I'm not going to see commercials in 5 years for progesterone related lawsuits the way I see for every other drug in the pharmaceutical dictionary.

**In fact, I wish more doctors knew about its use to help with preventing miscarriage**

Very likely, they DO know. You are handwaving away the fact that often there is a reason why a miscarriage occurs, such as a severe abnormality in the embryo, and preventing it from miscarrying is not necessarily the best thing to do.

Nope, probably not. Dr. Hilgers has been using progesterone to treat recurrent and threatened miscarriage for longer than 5 years and to my knowledge he's never been sued.

If miscarriage happens due to fetal abnormality, no amount of progesterone in the world will save the baby. But if miscarriage happens or is threatened due to low progesterone, it can indeed be a lifesaver in those instances.

1) The doctor is correct in saying that fetus = correct medical terminology to refer to an unborn human. If you want to call it a baby that is up to you, I call my cat my 'baby' and Plum Dumpling calls her cellphone her baby

2) Fetuses do not in fact feel pain, as not only are they non-sentient prior to 25 weeks, but they are sedated and completely unconscious whilst in utero, which is why, when born in caul, they do not wake up, because as long as they are inside the amniotic sac, they, and do not have a high level of oxygen in their body they are out like a light

What you say about early miscarriage is generally true. That is where a woman has a single miscarriage in a string of successful pregnancies, abnormal embryo is miscarried. Where a woman is unable to sustain any pregnancy at all, something else is going on. I don't think it's necessary to go to injections first. And the body doesn't know synthetic progesterone from "bio-identical" (whatever that means). Certainly there are risks in any treatment, one being that the treatment might not work. Adverse results aren't always an occasion for a lawsuit.

I'm aware of that, though your contention of a 'string of miscarriages' meaning something else other than a defective embryo is not always the case. Sometimes, the wife and husband can both have a recessive gene for a genetic disorder. Though the odds of a given embryo inheriting 2 copies of the same bad gene from both parents are only 1 in 4, strings of bad luck can and do happen.

But that's neither here nor there, myintx being myintx probably neither knows nor cares that defective embryoes are often miscarried and her particular arrogant version of sad feelies would probably demand that everyone (except herself, naturally) be forced to prevent the natural miscarriage of such birth defects and bear the grief and expense of the results.

There are no 'unborn children'. Stop playing the 'dictionary says so game'. If you try that in a lot of jobs, and mail someone a plant or animal species completely other than what they ordered, because the 'dictionary says this and that are a valid synonym' you will find yourself out on the street.

You, yourself, have admitted that you keep calling it an 'unborn child' in order to 'get people to think of it as a child'. I don't play the 'heads I win tails you lose game'. If you want something THOUGHT of as a 'child', it will be TREATED as a 'child' and removed from the uterus. If you don't want that, stop trying to play word games to get people to 'think of it as a child'.

They're hateful pro-choice death-mongers. Plump dumbling likes to make threats from the safety of her computer. I am quite unimpressed. She is being monitored and flagged. Down with the plump dumbling!

IMHO, arguing over terminology doesn't get one anywhere since it is a tautological debate/issue.

However, interesting enough, I noticed that even newspapers/magazines/news sites which might be written by pro-choice authors use the term "unborn baby" or "unborn child" to describe, say, a prenatal homicide victim. Thus, in addition to criticizing anti-abortion people for using incorrect terms, you should also criticize these news sites and newspapers/magazines for using incorrect terms. Interestingly enough, I noticed that many pro-choicers criticize the former but not the latter, which is (very) inconsistent.

**IMHO, arguing over terminology doesn't get one anywhere since it is a tautological debate/issue.**

No, it is a biological and medical issue. You do not get to refer to living things by deliberately vague, misleading and innaccurate terms just because a dictionary written for ignorant people claims such and such is a 'valid synonym'.

If you think you can, how about you send Scott Felzer around $300 as payment for a specimen of Thamnophis Sirtalis Infernalis (California Red Sided Garter Snake) and he instead sends you a specimen of Thamnophis Sirtalis (Eastern Garter snake, normally sells for $20).

Will you just say 'ho-hum, well that's fine, they are both 'Garter Snakes'. The Dictionary says so. I have not been ripped off". I don't think so.

Either a pwecious zef is a 'real person', which should have the same 'right to life' as a child, or it is not.

There is no halfway games where it is a 'real person for sure with a real life for sure' ONLY in the matter of abortion, but not in any other matter.

That is NOT how 'real persons with a right to life' are treated ethically or legally in our society, and you know it.

It is true that you cannot dismember a 'real person with a real right for life', without getting charged for murder.

You also cannot:

1. Throw a human body, or what you suspect may be a human body, out in the trash, without notifying the police and at the very least, having a death certificate filled out.

2. Force a child to smoke, drink, or do drugs, or harm or kill them by forcing them to ingest such substances.

3. Fail to provide a child with adequate nourishment.

This means, if a zef is a 'real person for sure with a real right to life' you must report all your periods to the police and hand over your tampons for inspection and autopsy.

It means if you smoke, drink, or do drugs while pregnant, even if you did not know you were pregnant, you will be arrested on various charges ranging from child abuse to assault to murder.

It means if you eat like crap, while pregnant, you will be arrested for child neglect and abuse.

You don't get to play the game that the pwecious zef is a person with rights only so long as it inconveniences others, but suddenly 90% of the rights a real person would have mysteriously vanish the moment it would inconvenience precious you.

There are no 'real people for sure' who are treated that way. You cannot legally even force some bum in an alley to drink whiskey against his will. If you claim that a pwecious embwyo can be legally treated that way, you don't want it to be treated like a 'real person'. You are just parroting words that you think will cause sad feelies.

Fair enough, though pro-choicers should be consistent in this by also criticizing newspapers/magazines/news articles which refer to, say, prenatal homicide victims as "unborn children" or something along those lines.

Defective embryo pregnancy is ultimately unsustainable, even with progesterone. Progesterone only builds the endometrium. It cannot prevent embryonic death, nor prevent the uterus from expelling the dead embryo/fetus. Of course, in this day of ultrasound, one would be performed after a threatened abortion to be sure the embryo or fetus is living, and if no heartbeat is detected, a D&C would be indicated.

**Defective embryo pregnancy is ultimately unsustainable, even with progesterone.**

Ok. I did not know that. I bow to your greater medical knowledge in this matter. However a woman can have a string of defective embryos, and resultant miscarriages, due to bad luck with recessive genes, meaning that there would be no real hormone problems in her case, and she could carry a normal embryo to term without hormone treatment.

I also stand by my statement that if it WERE possible to prevent the miscarriage of a severely defective embryo, myintx would probably insist on it. Unless it were a molar pregnancy. Myintx handwaves away the species of a molar pregnancy because it isn't cute.

Unborn children don't exist and abortion has nothing to do with poisoning or dismembering. You are sad though, very sad. It's amazing just how resistant you are to correcting your factual errors in understanding. Nothing more sad than someone willfully choosing stupidity at every turn.

It's not actually, see a medical dictionary to figure out why your lay terms are ones used by ignoramuses trying to excuse the violation of women's rights by murdering grammar and ignoring the use of the future tense.

No, it's not and no dictionary states that this is so. Also, you don't seem to get how synonyms work, since they aren't identical to the terms they're related to, and when speaking of a medical and scientific term, don't apply at all. It's why we use the actual word and not fuzzy-emotionally derived words without respect to tense commit the fallacy of an appeal to emotion .

And we know you're all about the "evil person" who takes the choice away from a mother and asserts his own morality and viewpoints because you agree that a mere woman should have no say over her own body, but that some other guy does and of course nothing that he does to her is a crime, since she's not a human to you,

"Unborn child" and "child in utero" are both valid synonyms for fetus. Too bad the terms make you think about what you support.

You can quit hiding behind the word 'choice'. Say it like it is, while looking at a 4D ultrasound of an unborn child at 16 or 20 weeks - "I support a woman having that tiny human being dismembered and killed for any reason in the world".

It's not 'her own body' that is killed in the abortion. There are (at least) 2 human beings involved in a pregnancy. No human being should be killed simply because they are deemed inconvenient or unwanted.

No such thing as "unborn children", you are however the party that is harming fetuses and pregnant women at every turn. How are you not talking out of your rear end when you take every single position AGAINST a healthy, wanted pregnancy? You're pretty darned horrible for screeching about the unborn senior citizens while eagerly attacking literally any attempt to safe guard the much wanted pregnancies endangered when your Koch pals dump things into the environment that harms embryos and fetuses. What's wrong? If it's called by its proper name, and a woman wishes to gestate, it doesn't matter anymore? Imaginary bay-beees and raping women, THAT gets you all het up, but you can't be bothered to support women who wish to be pregnant and NOT have the development of their fetus be destroyed by whatever you Koch buddies want to dump into the water?

Apparently the only "choice" you're for, is the choice to deny living breathing women and much wanted pregnancies at every turn. Your choice is to kill fetuses, it's to kill born women, and you're "proud" to be a death loving hypocrite who can only get behind something if it ensures that a woman or her zygote/embryo/fetus/newborn suffers.

Are you proud of your self to be talking out of both sides of your mouth and directly out of your rear? It would seem that you're terribly proud of being a misogynist who hates fetuses when they're real and carried by women who want to be mothers to healthy children. Are you proud to be such a hypocritical liar determined to terminate wanted pregnancies while you force women to carry unwanted ones? What a sadistic little pyschopath you pro-deathers truly are. There is a reason that you're always around to be harassing women, bombing clinics, shooting doctors and threatening the families of clinic personnel, but somehow mysteriously absent when it comes to doing something to actually protect the health of wanted pregnancies, or support women who would choose to gestate if they were financially, physically, or practically able to raise children. You seem to take pride in some extremely nasty behavior, killing what you think are "unborn children" just because your political leadership and your church tell you to.

They're actually not. Why? Because fetus is a specific name for a measurable period. Too bad that actual terminology based on fact or science is beyond you, since an appeal to emotion is all you have to argue your rather nasty violations of human rights, basic ethics and morality as human beings have defined them.

Yeah, say it like it is, you psychopath. 4d ultrasounds huh? You really don't give a rat's patoot about that fetus you're screeching so idiotically about, do you? Subject a fetus to an unnecessary medical procedure just because your narcissism demands a prop for your failed arguments against basic human rights? You're a true sick puppy. These types of ultrasounds are so that a medical professional (people who actually learned the words and studied to become doctors instead of failing everything and lying all the time so they can play Dr. Mengele like you) can visualize the fetus to check for medical issues.

I support the human being, both the mother and doctor who make the decision that's best for the medical situation of that patient. Apparently you're the sicko who can look at an 8 year old rape victim and say to her, "You're not a human being to me little girl, so I don't care if the fetuses planted inside you by your rapist father kill you, dismember you or cause you any amount of pain, you're not as worthy as the thing I made up in my mind and have a computer generated picture of. You just go ahead and suffer and die, my church and I will damn you, your mother and your doctor to hell, while embracing your rapist dad to our bosom, because that's what we're about, torturing girls and women and loving the rapist."

It's often her own body killed by the unwanted pregnancy. There is only one human being in a pregnancy, neither an embryo nor a non-viable fetus is a "human being" or a "child" but the body you'd sacrifice so coldly, that lives and breathes and has a functional neuronal system which feels pain.

Your problem seems to be that you're an utter ignoramus about what words actually mean and you take conversational terms to be the equivalent of real words. Apparently all those people who refer to their fetuses as "peanut" or "bean" really are, per your thinking, not gestating human tissue at all, but actual legumes.

I agree no human being should be killed because some idiot who failed science, can't understand words and hates passionately women (and little girls) deems it "convenient" and preferable for them to suffer and die for her own politics.

No human being should ever be violated by people like you, not be denied their basic rights of bodily integrity, not their basic autonomy, nor their basic rights to access medical care.

How many women will you kill before you figure out just how deadly and immoral your stance is? The corpses of women and girls have been piling up, and ignoring them won't make them go away or change the reality of what it is you advocate for so pathetically.

MYINTX.... how I have missed your delusional anti-choice anti-woman rants.,,,

It is OK for a woman to have an abortion. It always has been and always will be. What is not OK is to force her into the misery of pregnancy and force her to have her life destroyed all so the precious little embryo can come to term.

I don't hate anyone. Is it 'hating' to tell a woman she cannot kill her unborn child at 28 weeks just because she doesn't want to be pregnant anymore? And, at least I don't want anyone to be killed. You're the one supporting the killing of about 1 million human beings every year in this country alone.

Oh sweet myintx your hatred for women shines through in every post you make. You view us as nothing but inferior baby making machines and you want to sIut shame any woman who has sex for a reason besides reproduction.

Again get over your sick obsession with late term abortions. Why are you so focused on something that makes up less than 1% of the abortions?

I do not support killing anyone. If the ZEF can survive outside the woman's body, have the doctor induce labor and then the baby can live on its own. However if it needs the woman's body to survive the choice is hers.